Bombay High Court
ISHAN RAOSAHEB BORUDEversusTHE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
- Decided
- Disposal
- Disposed Off
Holding
Bail is granted to the applicant subject to specified conditions.
Summary
The Bombay High Court considered a bail application filed under Section 483 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, by 19‑year‑old Ishan Raosaheb Borude, who is accused of offences under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, the Arms Act, the Criminal Law Amendment Act and the Maharashtra Police Act. The prosecution’s case relied mainly on a single witness statement linking the applicant to a conspiracy, with no other specific allegation of his participation. The applicant has no prior criminal record and is a student at an ITI. The Court noted the applicant’s youth, lack of antecedents, and the potential for rehabilitation, and found that an arguable case for bail existed. Consequently, the Court granted bail subject to a personal bond of Rs.10,000 and a series of conditions, while expressly reserving its right to assess the merits of the case at trial.
Issues considered
- Whether bail should be granted to a young accused charged with serious offences when the prosecution evidence against him is limited to a single witness statement.
- Whether the applicant’s age, lack of antecedents, and prospects of rehabilitation outweigh the interests of justice in keeping him in custody.
Legislation cited
- Arms Act, 1959 — s. 4(25)(27)
- Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 — s. 483
- Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 — s. 103, 109(1), 61(2)
- Criminal Law Amendment Act — s. 3, 7
- Maharashtra Police Act, 1951 — s. 135, 37(1)(3)
Subjects
- bail
- juvenile offender
- rehabilitation
- conspiracy
- serious offences
- Indian criminal procedure
- presumption of innocence
Judgment
31.BA.3323.2026.doc
HARSHADA H. SAWANT
(P.A.)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
BAIL APPLICATION NO.3323 OF 2026
Ishan Raosaheb Borude .. Applicant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra .. Respondent
....................
Mr. Vipul Dushing a/w. Mr. Prajyot Shinde, Mr. Ashraf Kazi,
Advocates for Applicant.
Mr. Sukanta A. Karmakar, APP for Respondent.
API – Madhumati Shinde, Pimpri Police Station.
...................
CORAM : MILIND N. JADHAV, J.
DATE : SEPTEMBER 02, 2026
P.C.:
1. Heard Mr. Dushing, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent.
2. This is an Application under Section 483 of Bharatiya
Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 seeking Bail in connection with C.R.
No.739 of 2025 registered with Pimpri Police Station for offences
punishable under Sections 103, 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya
Nyaya Sanhita, 2023; Section 4(25)(27) of the Arms Act, 1959 and
Sections 3 and 7 of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, and Section
37(1)(3) read with Section 135 of the Maharashtra Police Act, 1951.
3. On 31.08.2026, after hearing the learned Advocate and
learned APP following order was passed:-
“1. Heard Mr. Dushing, learned Advocate for Applicant and Mr.
Karmakar, learned APP for Respondent – State.
1 of 6
31.BA.3323.2026.doc
2. In the present case, Applicant is arraigned as accused
alongwith 4 accused persons in the crime. Applicant is indicted under
Sections 103, 109(1) and 61(2) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023
(BNS); Section 4(25)(27) of the Arms Act; Section 7 of the Criminal
Law Amendment Act and Section 37(1)(3) read with 135 of the
Maharashtra Police Act.
3. According to the prosecution case, as argued by Mr.
Dushing, the prosecution has attributed a specific role to the other co-
accused persons namely that they had arrived at the scene of the crime
and allegedly assaulted the victim. The prosecution has recorded
statements of three primary eyewitnesses who claim to have witnessed
the incident, copies of which are appended to the Application.
4. According to the prosecution case and as can be seen from
one of the witness statements appended at Page No.89, the witness
states that the Applicant was part of the conspiracy to eliminate the
victim. Save and except for the said statement appearing on Page
No.89, there is nothing else attributed to the role of the Applicant.
Applicant was not named in the initial FIR, but was arraigned as an
accused only on the basis of the said witness statement. Prima facie,
the Applicant has no antecedents. He is 19 years old, a young offender
and is studying at an ITI.
5. Prima facie, on the basis of the aforesaid submissions, an
arguable case is made out by Mr. Dushing for grant of bail.
6. Mr. Karmakar, learned Prosecutor would persuade me to
allow him to take appropriate instructions with regard to the specific
role attributed to the accused and as to whether he was present at the
scene of crime because it appears from the record that the Applicant
was keeping a watch and had indicated about the presence of the
deceased via a phone signal and he would therefore like to take
appropriate instructions in that regard
7. At the request made by the learned Prosecutor, the matter
to be listed as a ‘Part-Heard’ on the next adjourned date.
8. Stand over to 2nd September 2026. To be treated as ‘First on
Board’.”
4. Carrying on further, it is prima facie seen that in so far
Applicant is concerned, save and except witness statement that
Applicant was a part of the conspiracy there is no specific role
attributed to the Applicant, in so far as the crime in question is
concerned.
5. Applicant having no antecedents and being a 19 year old
2 of 6
31.BA.3323.2026.doc
young offender and studying in ITI deserves to be given an
opportunity.
6. Considering Applicant’s age, if he is enlarged on bail Court is
hopeful that his family will undoubtedly do their duty to make every
effort and attempt to reform and aid the Applicant in leading a
reformed life while on bail rather than keep him in prison and expose
him to criminal outlook and life in prison. However on the flip side, if a
chance is given to the Applicant because of his young age by enlarging
him on bail, there is a possibility that he will be remorseful and repent
in retrospect. This is a chance required to be taken by the Court
because punishment has to be believed to be inflicted for a reformative
result rather than being punitive in nature.
7. Undoubtedly the trial will determine the complicity of
Applicant in the offence. While considering Bail Application in such
facts, Court feels that reform and rehabilitation of the under trial
accused needs to be considered especially when age of the accused
person is young so that he gets an opportunity / or is given an
opportunity to reform, rehabilitate and earn his livelihood honorably
from the perspective of social integration. This is a chance which the
Court must take considering the young age of accused person. The age
of the Applicant is very young. If the Applicant is incarcerated in prison
further, there is every possibility that he might lose faith in the
3 of 6
31.BA.3323.2026.doc
institution and society at large and may tread the path of criminality or
would waste his life. Incarceration in prison exposes many youth to
abuse as is shown statistically.
8. There are several harms of incarceration which are inflicted
disproportionately on the youth. This is the reason why Court feels that
any / every semblance of a chance towards a reformative approach in
punishment should be adopted, especially in the case of young
offenders. Hence every opportunity or to that extent risk should be
constructively taken by the Court in the case of young offenders –
accused before committing such accused to further custody and give
such accused an opportunity to become a good citizen in the Society.
These observations are only in the view of the young age of the
Applicant before me and it is only a means to explore an alternative to
incarceration so that the Applicant can become a good citizen.
9. Considering the aforesaid, Applicant has made out case for
grant of bail subject to following conditions:-
(i) Applicant is directed to be immediately released from
prison in connection with Crime No. 739 of 2025;
(ii) Applicant is directed to be released on bail on
furnishing P.R. Bond of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten Thousand
only) with one or two surety / sureties of the like
amount;
4 of 6
31.BA.3323.2026.doc
(iii) Applicant shall report to the Investigating Officer at the
concerned Police Station, once every month on the first
Monday of the month between 10:00 a.m. to 12:00
p.m.;
(iv) Applicant shall co-operate with the conduct of trial and
attend the Trial Court on all dates, unless specifically
exempted and will not take any unnecessary
adjournments, if he does so it will entitle the
prosecution to apply for revocation of this order;
(v) Applicant shall not leave the State of Maharashtra
without prior permission of the Trial Court;
(vi) Applicant shall not influence any of the witnesses or
tamper with the evidence in any manner;
(vii) Applicant shall keep the Investigating Officer informed
of his current address and mobile contact number and /
or change of residence or mobile details, if any, from
time to time, as applicable; and
(viii)Any infraction of the conditions shall entail cancellation
of bail granted to the Applicant.
10. It is clarified that the observations made in this order are
limited for the purpose of granting Bail only and I have not made any
observations on merits of the case. The trial shall be adjudicated on
the strength of the evidence led and strictly on its own merits being
5 of 6
31.BA.3323.2026.doc
uninfluenced with any of the prima facie observations made
hereinabove in this order.
11. Bail Application is allowed and disposed of in the above
terms.
H. H. SAWANT [ MILIND N. JADHAV, J. ]
Digitally signed
HARSHADA by HARSHADA
HANUMANT
HANUMANT SAWANT
SAWANT Date: 2026.09.02
18:42:27 +0530
6 of 6
Checking your session…